Iran, the world's foremost exporter of terrorism,
is working hard to acquire nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons that will vastly increase its ability to intimidate its
neighbors. To deliver these hyperlethal weapons, Tehran is
developing ballistic missiles with extensive foreign assistance,
primarily from Russia. Congress moved to counter this development
by passing the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act (IMPSA),
which would allow the imposition of economic sanctions on foreign
companies and government agencies that assist Iran's ballistic
missile program. President Bill Clinton, however, vetoed this
legislation on June 23, ostensibly to avoid straining relations
with Russia but also to improve prospects for better relations with
Iran. Congress now has an opportunity to restore the IMPSA to
signal both Iran and Russia that the United States is determined to
protect both its own security interests and those of allies that
would be threatened by Iran's missiles.

Iran's
Missile Program. Iran has made steady progress in developing
medium-and long-range missiles with foreign assistance. The Central
Intelligence Agency predicts that Iran's Shahab-3 missile, with an
estimated range of at least 800 miles, will undergo its first test
flight by early 1999. This missile, which could carry nuclear or
chemical warheads, will give Iran the capability of striking U.S.
military forces in the Middle East, as well as Israel, Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, and other American allies in the region. A
longer-range version, the Shahab-4, which is believed to be three
years away from flight testing, will give Iran the ability to
attack targets at least 1,240 miles away. This will pose a threat
to NATO allies as far west as Germany.

Iran's
Shahab missiles are based on blueprints of the No-Dong missile
provided by the North Korean government, but Russia has played a
critical role in helping Iran to develop the missiles since at
least 1994. Several hundred Russian engineers and technicians have
provided crucial expertise, hardware, and technical support.
Although the Russian government repeatedly has pledged to clamp
down on the sale of missile technology to Iran, authorities seem to
be unable or unwilling to stop the leakage.

U.S.
intelligence agencies report that the lucrative Russian-Iranian
missile trade continues. On March 22, Azerbaijani customs officials
on the Iran-Azerbaijan border seized over 20 tons of Russian
stainless steel missile components bound for Iran. The continued
transfer of such dangerous technology raises disturbing questions
about whether the Russian government merely is paying lip service
to its pledge to halt the transfer of missile technology to Iran or
is even capable of policing its own companies and research
institutes. This laxness is particularly egregious considering that
such missile technology transfers violate the 1987 Missile
Technology Control Regime and the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces Treaty, both of which Moscow is committed to observe.

Congress Takes the Lead. To reduce the flow
of foreign missile technology and know-how to Iran, Congress passed
the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act by overwhelming
bipartisan majorities: The Senate passed the IMPSA by a vote of 90
to 4 in May, and the House followed suit in June by a vote of 392
to 22. The act requires the President to submit a report to
Congress identifying foreign companies, research institutes, or
other entities that have been implicated by "credible evidence" in
aiding Iran's efforts to develop ballistic missiles. Three types of
sanctions would then be applied against offending entities: denial
of munitions licenses, denial of licenses for dual-use technology,
and denial of U.S. foreign aid. The IMPSA in effect would force
Russian and other foreign companies to choose between short-term
profits from dealing with Iran and potentially far more lucrative
long-term economic relations with the United States.

Despite overwhelming bipartisan support for
the bill in Congress, President Clinton vetoed it on June 23,
claiming that the act was "indiscriminate, inflexible, and
prejudicial" to efforts to contain the spread of missile
technology. Clinton complained that the bill would require
"sweeping application of sanctions according to inflexible and
indiscriminate criteria." The language of the bill, however,
specifies that the President would determine what constitutes
"credible evidence" needed to trigger sanctions and that the
President could waive the imposition of sanctions for reasons of
national security. Finally, the charge that the IMPSA is an
indiscriminate foreign policy tool rings hollow because the bill is
targeted against specific companies, not countries, for a narrowly
defined purpose: to slow the spread of dangerous missile technology
to Iran.

Clinton Administration officials contend
that the IMPSA will embarrass the Russian government and undermine
Russian-American cooperation on stemming missile proliferation and
other issues. But Russian cooperation on blocking the flow of
missile technology to Iran has been woefully inadequate. The IMPSA
merely punishes Russian companies for violating the declared policy
of the Russian government and for violating two international
agreements undertaken by that government.

Another factor behind the President's veto
is that the IMPSA could impede the Administration's efforts to open
a dialogue with Iran. The veto came less than a week after Clinton
expressed hope for "a genuine reconciliation with Iran." Although
Tehran has softened its anti-American rhetoric since the May 1997
election of President Mohammad Khatami, Iran nevertheless continues
its hostile policies. According to the State Department's most
recent annual survey of international terrorism, Iran remained the
most active state sponsor of terrorism in 1997.

Conclusion. If President Clinton's veto of
the IMPSA is allowed to stand, Iran will benefit from the
unstaunched flow of missile technology from Russia and other
countries. Tehran, moreover, is likely to see the veto as an act of
weakness. Washington cannot afford to relax sanctions merely to
obtain illusory changes in Tehran's rhetoric. The United States
must continue to use economic sanctions to pressure Iran, and those
who would help Iran build its military power, until Iran has halted
its hostile policies. The only way to achieve this is to restore
the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act.

--James
A. Phillipsis Director of Administration of The
Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis International Studies Center at The
Heritage Foundation.